IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.178 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-39 Year-2009 Thana- RUDRAPUR District- Madhubani ====================================================== Md. Shaukat @ Shaukat Ali, Son of Md. Isahak @ Md. Isa R/v- Sangram, P.S.- Arariya Sangram, O.P. Post Office- Tulapatganj, District- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Jaibul Khatoon, Wife of Md. Shaukat @ Shaukat Ali, D/o Md. Abdul Khalik R/v- Sangram, P.S.- Arariya Sangram, O.P. Post Office- Tulapatganj, District- Madhubani Present R/v- Haribatua, P.S.- Rudrapur, District- Madhubani 3. Chandani Khatoon, D/o Md. Shaukat @ Shaukat Ali (Minor under guardianship of her mother) R/v- Sangram, P.S.- Arariya Sangram, O.P. Post Office- Tulapatganj, District- Madhubani Present R/v- Haribatua, P.S.- Rudrapur, District- Madhubani ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER 5 22-04-2025 1. An order, dated 14th of December, 2022, passed in M. R. Case No. 20 of 2016, filed by the petitioner/husband, praying for setting aside the ex parte order of maintenance, was rejected by the Trial Court. The petitioner has filed the instant revision challenging the said order on the ground that he did not receive any notice of M. R. Case No. 20 of 2016. 2. I have perused the impugned order, dated 14th of December, 2022 as well as the order passed in M. R. Case No. 20 of 2016, dated 4th of February, 2022. It is not the case that the petitioner did not receive summons. Summons sent through Patna High Court CR. REV. No.178 of 2023(5) dt.22-04-2025 2/2 Court was received by one of his family members at her parental home. Postal Track Report shows that the summons issued under registered post was also delivered to the petitioner. Therefore, service of notice of M. R. Case No. 20 of 2016 was sufficiently proved. Since the petitioner did not appear before the Trial Court to contest the case, the trial Judge has no other alternative but to dispose of the case ex parte. 3. Since, I am not in a position to be in conformity with the learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner that order in M. R. Case No. 20 of 2016 was passed without service of notice, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order, dated 14th of December, 2022. 4. The revisional application is, thus, dismissed. 5. Office is directed to send the Lower Court Records to the concerned Court. uttam/- (Bibek Chaudhuri, J) U